Response by Kaliya Hamlin, Identity Woman User-Advocate / Independent Expert / Identity Community Leader To [Docket No. 110524296-1289-02] Notice of Inquiry Models for a Governance Structure for the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace issued by Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce and National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce July 22, 2011 Inquiries about this response should be directed to: Kaliya Hamlin [email protected] 510 472-9069 http://www.identitywoman.net Sub-Section Co-Authors: Insight and Governance: Tom Atlee, Co-Intelligence Institute Value Network Mapping: Verna Allee, President ValueNet Work Inc Polarity Management: Barry Johnston, Polarity Management Associates & Jake Jacobs, Winds of Change Dear Patrick Gallagher and Jeremy Grant, The challenge of fostering the emergence and governance of an Identity Ecosystem is vast. I do think it is possible for a thriving ecosystem to emerge with the application of the best of available organizational, deliberative and governance processes and structures. The high level vision outlined in the NSTIC has buy-in from a broad group of stakeholders. Making it real will involve government participation with the private commercial sector and civil society groups (neighborhood associations, schools, religious institutions, sports leagues, advocacy groups). The government also can’t abdicate responsibility and just collaborate with the private sector because its job is to be an advocate for the people and ensure that the guiding principles are not left behind because they are inconvenient or perceived to cost too much. The private sector is not just the largest IT companies, and government must remember to foster some space for new innovations to emerge. Government must, in this startup phase, develop with the broadest possible range of stakeholders, agree upon metrics (both qualitative and quantitative) for ecosystem health, balance and success, and have in place systems to monitor and feed back to the system the results from the agreed-upon indicators. 1 The danger of creating an unbalanced (in a range of ways) ecosystem is also present. On the one hand, because it could become very easy for virtually any company online to request highly validated identities and require the presentation of identifiers associated with “real legal name” credentials for almost all transactions and comments. This is an inhibitor of civil freedoms and creates a participatory panopticon1 situation. On the other hand, a diverse range of accountability networks may not gain adoption because they are not well understood and therefore transactions online decline or people retreat into private commercially-controlled silos. I open my response by diving into some of the terms and frames that are in NSTIC and used to talk about identity generally, along with examples from my community context. Within the history of the user-centric identity community are some key insights into how to best proceed with developing common stakeholder alignment towards collaborative action to make the vision presented in NSTIC a reality. You will notice I take the liberty to craft questions that I wish were in the NOI. I added them because it is systems seeing and insight that will be key to effectively “steering”, or to use a more appropriate metaphor, catalyzing industry to move towards making the NSTIC vision of interoperable accountability frameworks and interoperable technologies for identities. In the last 6 years I have worked with many talented systems thinkers, process innovators, facilitators, and I have invited four of them to contribute in this response with me listed above as co-authors of particular sections. My overall goal in this response is to outline several processes and structures that: • cultivate shared language and understanding, • collaboratively develop maps of common understanding of issues, ecosystem roles and value flows, • facilitate efficient information sharing, • provide efficient systems synthesis, • provide unique analytical tools, • allow the system to find pulse points to measure success and warn of imbalances, • have the potential to foster broad legitimacy with disinterested citizens (who after all are the ones with the identities, identifiers and claims) and • most importantly, foster collaboration and shared action by the wide pool of interested stakeholders working on making an Identity Ecosystem real. I describe how they can be applied to the development of, leadership of, and ongoing accountability to all stakeholders of a “steering group”. Because of the length and depth of my response, I have added a Table of Contents beginning on the next page. Please let me know if you have any questions about this document. I would be happy to answer them. I look forward to continued participation in this process. Enjoy! -Kaliya, Identity Woman 2 Table of Contents Response Context for Kaliya, Identity Woman 8 Terms, Frames and Context 10 What is an Ecosystem? 10 Ecosystems Collaborate using Shared Language 10 Origins of Shared Language for Identity Collaboration 12 In the Beginning... 12 Everyone’s Blogging 12 Lexicon Development 13 Identity Community Development 14 From Meet-ups to the Internet Identity Workshop un-Conference 14 Collaboration Doesn’t “Just Happen” 15 What is special about our Events? 15 IIW has no “steering group” 15 Proactive Development of Shared Language by NSTIC Stakeholders 16 Alignment 17 The Many Goals for the Identity Ecosystem & NSTIC Governance 19 The Trouble with Trust 20 Trust Operates on Different Scales 21 Ecosystem Maps - Present, Evolving, Future 25 Polarity Management: 25 Polarities 25 Polarities in the Strategy 25 Developing Polarity Maps work for the Identity Ecosystem 27 Proven Process for Leveraging Polarities: See, Map, and Tap. 27 Example of leveraging a polarity with the Deputy CIO at the DOD: 27 3 Real Time Strategic Change 28 Making Reality A Key Driver 29 Engaging and Including 29 Preferred Futuring 29 Creating Community 29 Thinking and Acting in Real Time 29 Building Understanding 29 Value Network Mapping and Analysis 30 Example of Applying VNA to the Changing Journalism Ecosystem 31 Applying VNA to NSTIC Vision for an Identity Ecosystem Framework 32 Applying VNA to the Personal Data Ecosystem 33 Benefits of Systems Mapping Processes 35 Questions of Governance 36 Accurate Assumptions in the NOI 36 Limiting Assumptions in the NOI 36 Voting as a Way to Govern Decision Making 36 A Steering Group as THE Governance Structure 36 Who are the Stakeholders? 37 The Scope of People 37 Organizational Stakeholders 37 Effective Information Sharing 39 Structure of the Steering Group 41 Insight for Governance 43 Stakeholder Engagement with Dialogue and Deliberation 43 What does the Steering group do? 44 How is the Steering Group Composed? 46 Processes and Structures for Distributing Power and Ecosystem Evolution 47 Some Answers to NSTIC governance NOI Questions 47 4 Processes to be utilized by the Steering Group 48 Dynamic Facilitation (DF) 48 Creative Insight Council (CIC) 48 Open Space Technology (OST) 49 The World Cafe (TWC) 49 Using These Processes 50 Stakeholder Insight Combined with Ecosystem Maps 50 The Importance of Public Legitimacy 51 Summary 53 User-Centric Community Success 53 How to Create Shared Language and Understanding 53 Help Stakeholders Learn About and Find One Another 53 Measure Shared Understanding 54 Foster Accountability Frameworks 54 Public Legitimacy is Key to Success 54 Release Control to a Diverse Stakeholder Group 54 Missing Questions about NSTIC Governance 55 NSTIC NOI Questions 57 Structure of the Steering Group 57 Steering Group Initiation 60 Representation of Stakeholders in the Steering Group 63 International 65 Appendixes 67 1: Planetwork Link Tank 67 2: The Augmented Social Network 68 3: People Diversity 78 5 4: Biomimicry Taxonomy 79 5: Reboot: Deliberative Democracy 80 6: Extreme Tao of Democracy 86 8: Anti-pseudonym bingo 92 7: Public Engagement Guide from NCDD 87 9: On Refusing to Tell You My Name 93 10: Who is Harmed by a “Real Names” Policy? 94 Marginalised and endangered groups 94 Women, who: 94 LGBT people, especially: 95 Children 95 Parents and carers at risk or caring for children at risk 95 People with disabilities 95 People from certain racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious backgrounds: 95 People with names that are associated with being from a poor or lower class family or background. 95 People with names that are associated with a particular (often older) generation. 95 Victims of real-world abuse and harassment. 95 Anyone in a marginalised group who might be "outed" in some way 96 Political activists and related groups 96 Subject-related considerations 96 Health and Disability: 96 Sex and Sexuality: 96 Religion: 97 Abuse and harassment: 97 Legal: 97 Discussions about people where identities are not disclosed: 97 Mocked or looked down hobbies: 97 Innocuous hobbies without link to real world identity impinging on the discussion: 97 Separate interests under separate accounts: 97 6 Employment-related 97 General 98 Those who use professional pseudonyms, including: 98 Those whose employment means they need to not be found online: 98 People with employers who place restrictions on online speech: 98 People with Employers that publicly searchable online directories: 98 People whose "real names" are more complicated than you think 99 Names outside the norms: 99 People who legally have three or more names: 99 People who are known by a subset or